The Swedish dream was always too good to be true.

And now the far right is back

"In our opinion Sweden’s policy has been based upon a determination to keep out of the war at all costs rather than one of strict neutrality. Hence, she has granted concessions to one belligerent group and then the other in accordance with fluctuations of the war."

If the general population knew what our governments are really doing in the name of national security or best interests, we would be appalled. Supposedly our democratic governments are representing the wishes of the public that they serve but, I fear that in many cases, this is not so. Governments as a whole and individual politicians whom are drunk with power and/or have an social agenda do their own thing.

When you say you are upset with a country and do not like its policies, it is important to separate the people of that nation from the politics. Most of us are not happy with the policies either.

You mean countries change their own rules to suit themselves?The same country that lobbied for sanctions on sweden in 1944, had no issue using brutal middle East or north afri
... (show full quote)

You mean countries change their own rules to suit themselves?

The same country that lobbied for sanctions on sweden in 1944, had no issue using brutal middle East or north african dictators in the 60, 70, 80s but then invaded most of them 20 years later!
... (hide full quote)

In the case of Sweden, they didn’t change their rules when the time came to investigate and prosecute all the nazi war criminals that were living free and wealthy in Sweden. A simple ask, complied by many countries, considering they helped save Jewish refugees during the war. But nope, for decades until now they were unwilling to do so. Even now, as a symbolic act. How weird because that could have sealed the deal of the “good Swede” image.

But maybe that already suited them, nazis living amongst them.

You keep bringing up America as if I think they are innocent or that it’s people turn a blind eye to the governments wrong doings. You are challenging me based on a sentiment YOU believe I have, an assumption.

"...Sweden’s policy has been based upon a determination to keep out of the war at all costs..."

Swap "costs" for "profits", and you're starting to make sense.

But then there's no point arguing with an idiot, right (right).

"Desperate attempt to make myself feel better...from what?"

The guilt of living in the country that nuked another country. Same as the Germans today, who have the national guilt to carry courtesy of their grandfathers...not the same, but similar.

"I wasn't yet born when the bomb was dropped."

So what. Neither was I.

"And rationalising that nukes are good?"

Um, yup...let's have a look at what you write immediately after this comment: "If dropping the bomb brought a quicker end to the war and ultimately saved more lives than it took, how cannot that be considered positive?"

You pose it as a question, but actually, you use it to absolve. Claiming nukes were necessary (i.e. killing shit loads of people) to "save lives", avoid killing shit loads of other people, makes little sense to me.

And it's pure speculation. You don't really know if that was in fact true, that's why you pose it as a question, a possibility, Granted, my statement, was also a speculation and according to you, a lefty liberal "idealistic" argument. But it makes inherently more sense to me, that it wasn't at all about ending the war in Japan, since it was essentially already over. Estimates were that it would have caved in within 3 months of the "nuking of Japan", regardless.

It was all about what would be coming next, as Britain handed the keys to the universe over to the US.

Now, as I admit it is speculation, what I wrote, and that it makes much sense to me, I can add, much to your chagrin, that this was researched and presented by a 2-tours in Vietnam American patriot, who knows how to make excellent movies. There is quite a lot of "verified" information there, even if there was a lefty liberal spin. Doesn't take a genius to read between the lines, to filter, and see what's left at the end.

Now, you can politicise that as you like, doesn't matter to me. But that series of documentaries can at least back up what it claims; what small part of it I have relayed here (as opposed to your conjecture, chosen due to you politics and whatever else you see as the narrative that suits you).

"...Sweden’s policy has been based upon a determination to keep out of the war at all costs..."Swap "costs" for "profits", and you're start
... (show full quote)

"...Sweden’s policy has been based upon a determination to keep out of the war at all costs..."

Swap "costs" for "profits", and you're starting to make sense.

But then there's no point arguing with an idiot, right (right).

"Desperate attempt to make myself feel better...from what?"

The guilt of living in the country that nuked another country. Same as the Germans today, who have the national guilt to carry courtesy of their grandfathers...not the same, but similar.

"I wasn't yet born when the bomb was dropped."

So what. Neither was I.

"And rationalising that nukes are good?"

Um, yup...let's have a look at what you write immediately after this comment: "If dropping the bomb brought a quicker end to the war and ultimately saved more lives than it took, how cannot that be considered positive?"

You pose it as a question, but actually, you use it to absolve. Claiming nukes were necessary (i.e. killing shit loads of people) to "save lives", avoid killing shit loads of other people, makes little sense to me.

And it's pure speculation. You don't really know if that was in fact true, that's why you pose it as a question, a possibility, Granted, my statement, was also a speculation and according to you, a lefty liberal "idealistic" argument. But it makes inherently more sense to me, that it wasn't at all about ending the war in Japan, since it was essentially already over. Estimates were that it would have caved in within 3 months of the "nuking of Japan", regardless.

It was all about what would be coming next, as Britain handed the keys to the universe over to the US.

Now, as I admit it is speculation, what I wrote, and that it makes much sense to me, I can add, much to your chagrin, that this was researched and presented by a 2-tours in Vietnam American patriot, who knows how to make excellent movies. There is quite a lot of "verified" information there, even if there was a lefty liberal spin. Doesn't take a genius to read between the lines, to filter, and see what's left at the end.

Now, you can politicise that as you like, doesn't matter to me. But that series of documentaries can at least back up what it claims; what small part of it I have relayed here (as opposed to your conjecture, chosen due to you politics and whatever else you see as the narrative that suits you).
... (hide full quote)

What documentarian, Ken Burns?

My speculation is that America wanted a revenge attack on Japan, wanted to show the world what destructive power it held, and, as you put forth, that it was a warning to USSR. The USSR was essentially doing the same thing as nazi Germany, trying to take over Europe, the Gulag camps, authoritarian dictatorship. It makes perfect sense.

America even got the soviets to join in the fight against japan right at the end so they could have front row seat to the destructive powers the US now held.

My speculation is that if Sweden joined the allies the war would have been over much sooner and many more lives would have been saved with less lost than the atomic bomb produced.

People should also realize that Japan was totally devastated by conventional incendiary bombs along with high explosive bombs and there really were no targets left of any real value other than the two that were a-bombed only because they were untouched...

The Tokyo conventional bombing killed more than 70,000 people!!!

Japan was devastated by conventional weaponry alone...

Curtis LeMay and his bombers were unparalleled in their ability to rain destruction on enemy targets...He made "Bomber" Harris look peaceful!!!

However the A bombs were an incentive for Japan to admit defeat and surrender...

The estimates of casualties suffered in an invasion were over 900,000 Americans alone...No military leader/President would allow those deaths if he had the weapons to achieve victory at hand...

Remember Pearl Harbor was something I heard all my young life...And we certainly did!!!

A shame you are dismissive of people who have different opinions outside the orthodoxy.

Is it also Howard “tinfoil hat” Zinn to you? How dare someone examine a larger portion of history that is often stuffed down by “glory” and “triumph”

After just 10 min of watching the stone documentary, thanks gheebes by the way, will continue watching, it is clear that is what stone is trying to get across... that the shear atrocity of war, even those that “stay out” and are profiteers, are overlooked because stories and ideology of glory and “being a good guy” prevails.

What documentarian, Ken Burns?My speculation is that America wanted a revenge attack on Japan, wanted to show the world what destructive power it held, and, as you put forth,
... (show full quote)

What documentarian, Ken Burns?

My speculation is that America wanted a revenge attack on Japan, wanted to show the world what destructive power it held, and, as you put forth, that it was a warning to USSR. The USSR was essentially doing the same thing as nazi Germany, trying to take over Europe, the Gulag camps, authoritarian dictatorship. It makes perfect sense.

America even got the soviets to join in the fight against japan right at the end so they could have front row seat to the destructive powers the US now held.

My speculation is that if Sweden joined the allies the war would have been over much sooner and many more lives would have been saved with less lost than the atomic bomb produced.
... (hide full quote)

Speculate all you want. Nazi Germany had plenty of iron ore available in occupied france.